The problem isn't feasibility, it's resources. Building and rolling out a standardized environment, and maintaining it, will cost millions of dollars. It shouldn't, but it does. And for what added benefit? The end-users don't want it, you'd have to spend another couple million for a lateral move at best. More than likely, you'll end up with a pile of Python spaghetti code that runs slower than the spreadsheet (see point #4 about massively recursive calcs).

Why does building and rolling out a standardized environment cost so much? Could you break down the requisite steps and resources required to achieve this?

Thank you, I appreciate it :)

Up-front costs (mostly salaries, but all I.T. projects are "billable") 1.) Getting buy-in from solutions architect, software architecture, information security, I.T. management. This will be a 6 month process. 2.) Getting buy-in from actuarial management and audit. Another 6 month process.

Recurring annual costs (over 10 years) 3.) Contractor at $150 an hour = $300K annually 4.) Contractor PM at $50 an hour = $100K annually 5.) Information security compliance hoops, getting it to play nicely with the myriad of endpoint security tools, etc 6.) Ongoing maintenance and support (failed rollouts and upgrades, user desktop support, user training)

This isn't realistic at all. Assuming actuaries know Python like they know Excel, the only other added cost is someone technical to slap together a working environment, which isn't particularly hard when compared to the state of what Excel offers in a collaborative environment.

You just don't jump from "humans in Excel" to "CI/CD perfected pipeline" overnight, nor do you need it.

Excel shops still have costly expenses rewriting entire workflows/re-doing Excel files constantly as people come and go, it's not like there isn't already maintenance cost with the current method.

reminds me of standardization of the shipping container, not sure of all the details of how that push had happened though